Jeremy Kitchen wrote: > On Tuesday 02 November 2004 11:21 am, Bill Wichers wrote: >> I recently have been moving user domains from an old qmail+vpopmail >> server to a new one due in large part to hugely increased spam >> filter load (grumble). Anyway, I found one user with some 5+ GB of >> presumably all spam in their postmaster account (which was a catch >> all). The new box defaults to "set no catch-all" for exactly this >> kind of reason... > > yup. > >> Here's the problem though: I saw a very significant drop in server >> load when I deleted the hundreds of thousands of messages in that >> one user account. > > in fact, you'd probably see a huge decrease in load simply by > removing the catchall. One of our customers had, I estimated (simply > by how long it took to remove the directory) over 15 million emails > in their catchall account. I disabled the catchall and their 200k > message queue cleaned out in less than 10 minutes. > >> The server was apparently spending a lot of time dealing with >> deliveries to this one very full mailbox. This concerns me a bit >> since we're running IMAP now and I could see mailboxes with >> thousands of legitimate messages building up over time, and would >> not want to bog the system down if I have users that never delete >> messages. >> >> Does anyone know of a way to alleviate this problem without forcing >> quotas? > > use a non-ancient filesystem that doesn't slow down with more than a > few thousand files in a directory. I have 22000 emails in one imap > folder on my server (and tens of thousands on other folders) and have > zero slowdown with reiserfs. > > Some examples of non-ancient filesystems: > reiserfs > UFS with DIR_HASH > xfs > > -Jeremy
What version of reiserfs are you most comfortable using at the moment? -jw-
